SEND Law Hub
Some children face additional layers of vulnerability. Looked after children, those educated at home, in alternative provision, in custody, or from Armed Forces families all have specific statutory protections. This chapter explains what they are.
The 'Every Child Achieving and Thriving' Education White Paper was published in February 2026, alongside a companion document 'SEND Reform: Putting Children and Young People First'. These introduce significant proposed changes including Individual Support Plans, a new three-tier support model, and Specialist Provision Packages. The law documented here — the Children and Families Act 2014 and SEND Code of Practice 2015 — remains in full force until legislation and the updated Code are brought into effect. We will update each page as official text is published. See our SEND Reform 2026 page for a full breakdown.
This chapter sets out the additional legal protections for children who face higher risk of having their needs missed or unmet — looked after children, those educated otherwise, in alternative provision, in custody, or from Armed Forces families.
Children Act 1989. Children and Families Act 2014. Code of Practice § 10.3 to 10.38
Local authorities have both corporate parenting duties and SEND duties for looked after children. Where a looked after child has or may have SEN, the virtual school head should coordinate with the SEND team to ensure their needs are identified and met.
EHC needs assessments and plans for looked after children should be initiated and progressed swiftly. The responsible authority is the local authority that looks after the child, not necessarily the one where the child is placed.
Every looked after child must have a Personal Education Plan (PEP). Where a child has SEN, the PEP should join up with their EHCP. These should not be two separate unconnected documents.
Being in care should increase a child's access to support, not decrease it. The corporate parenting duty is an additional layer of obligation on top of standard SEND duties. Virtual school heads have a specific responsibility to make sure looked after children with SEN are not overlooked.
Ask who the virtual school head is and contact them directly if SEND is not being addressed. Ask how the PEP and EHCP are being coordinated and who holds responsibility for each element of provision.
Children and Families Act 2014. Education Act 1996. Code of Practice § 10.39 to 10.51
Where a child with an EHCP is electively home educated, the local authority continues to maintain the EHCP. The duty to secure the special educational provision in the EHCP remains. Annual reviews must continue.
If a parent removes a child from school to home educate without notifying the school or local authority, the EHCP does not automatically cease. The LA must still review it and work with the family.
The EHCP survives home education. The LA cannot use the decision to home educate as an excuse to cease the plan or stop delivering provision. Reviews must still happen.
Notify the LA of the home education decision and confirm in writing that the EHCP must be maintained. Ask what provision will continue and how the annual review will be conducted.
Children and Families Act 2014. Education Act 1996 Section 19. Code of Practice § 10.52 to 10.67
Where a child is in alternative provision — through exclusion, illness or other reason — they retain all their SEND rights. EHCPs must be maintained and reviewed. The commissioning school or local authority retains responsibility for the child's SEN provision, which does not transfer to the AP setting automatically.
Children in AP are at heightened risk of having SEN identified late or not at all. AP providers should screen all children for SEN and refer to the local authority promptly where needs are identified.
Moving to AP does not remove SEND rights. If a child's EHCP is being ignored in AP, the commissioning school and the LA remain responsible. Many children reach AP precisely because unmet SEN was not addressed — the AP placement should trigger an urgent review, not be used as a reason to close the case.
Write to the commissioning school and the LA asking who is responsible for EHCP provision in the AP placement and requesting confirmation it is continuing. If the child does not have an EHCP, request an EHC needs assessment now — AP placements often indicate unidentified complex SEN.
Children and Families Act 2014. Code of Practice § 10.75 to 10.97
Young people in youth custody retain SEND rights. EHCPs must be maintained. The responsible commissioner must ensure provision continues while the young person is in custody. Before release, the local authority must plan for continuation of support on return to the community.
Youth offending teams must work with schools, colleges and LAs to support young people with SEN. The high prevalence of unidentified SEN in the youth justice system is well documented — entry into custody should trigger identification and assessment where it has not previously happened.
Custody does not remove EHCP rights. Provision should continue inside and a plan for what happens on release must be made before the young person leaves. Many young people in custody have undiagnosed neurodevelopmental conditions — this is the time to get them formally identified.
Contact the home local authority and ask who is maintaining the EHCP and what provision is in place inside the secure setting. If no EHCP exists, request an EHC needs assessment. Ask the youth offending team to be a named liaison point.
Code of Practice § 10.98 to 10.117
When an Armed Forces family moves area, the new local authority must maintain the child's existing SEN support or EHCP without a gap in provision. They should not restart assessment from scratch unless there is a genuine reason. The EHCP transfers with the child.
Service children with EHCPs who move frequently are at high risk of disrupted provision and lost momentum. The local authority should consider the impact of frequent moves on the child's progress.
The EHCP moves with the family. The new LA picks up where the old one left off. They cannot treat a transfer as an opportunity to downgrade or reassess from scratch without reason.
Write to the new LA confirming the EHCP must be maintained from day one of the placement. Ask for the name of the responsible officer and a written confirmation of what provision will continue and from when.
'Every Child Achieving and Thriving' — DfE, February 2026
The white paper proposes Reintegration Support Partnerships as a new mechanism to support children in alternative provision to return to mainstream education where appropriate. These partnerships would bring together schools, AP providers, local authorities and health services to plan and support reintegration with the child's needs at the centre.
Once established, Reintegration Support Partnerships should reduce the current pattern of children being placed in AP indefinitely with no plan for their future. For families whose children are in AP, this is the proposed mechanism for ensuring there is an active, joined-up reintegration plan.
This does not yet exist. The current duty — that commissioning schools and LAs retain responsibility for EHCP provision in AP — applies in full. If your child is in AP with an EHCP and no plan for what happens next, push for that conversation now under the existing framework.
The white paper gives the Children's Commissioner new statutory oversight duties for SEND reform implementation. Specifically, the Commissioner will have oversight of outcomes for children facing multiple disadvantages — including looked after children, children in AP and excluded pupils. Regular public reports will document gaps and failures.
These reports will be evidence that can be used by families in complaints, LGO cases, and legal proceedings. Where a local authority's treatment of a vulnerable child is documented as a systemic failure in a Children's Commissioner report, that strengthens any individual challenge.
The £1.6 billion Inclusive Mainstream Fund is intended to ensure mainstream schools can meet more needs in-house, reducing the pipeline into AP. Combined with the Experts at Hand service, the white paper is aiming to reduce the number of children who end up in AP because mainstream schools lack the skills or resources to support them.
For families who believe a child was moved to AP because the school did not have resources or skills — not because AP was the right placement — the white paper's direction of travel supports that argument. It is explicit that exclusion and AP entry often reflect system failure, not child failure.
EHCP duties for looked after children — unchanged. EHCP maintenance in home education — unchanged. AP EHCP responsibilities — unchanged. Youth custody SEND duties — unchanged. Armed Forces family transfer protections — unchanged. The white paper does not reduce any of these protections. It proposes additional oversight and more joined-up AP support — neither of which reduces existing rights.
